The IPCC Prepares to Release More Hot Air

The IPCC is preparing to release a "Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC."

That sentence alone should be enough to make everyone within earshot duck for cover from the coming barrage of climate-related doomporn. But, sadly, half of the public will actively cheer the occasion and the other half will have no idea what is even happening. This is as sure a sign as any that the propagandists of the Global Warming Fear Cult (and their corporate/bankster/globalist backers) have succeeded in the most successful brainwashing campaign in the history of humanity.

Allow me to explain.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a monster created by the Frankensteins at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and their cohorts at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Founded in 1988, the panel bills itself as an "international body for assessing the science related to climate change." More specifically, it produces "assessment reports" (often referred to as the "climate bible") that seek to assemble the scientific evidence for climate change, assess its impacts and future risks, and evaluate options for adaptation and mitigation.

So far so cute and cuddly, right?

Well, our good friends at the UN are currently convening the 48th session of the IPCC in South Korea, an event that IPCC chair Hoesung Lee describes as "one of the most important meetings in the IPCC’s history." Their mission? To "consider the Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC," an assessment of the risks that will be associated with the 1.5 ºC rise in temperatures that the Paris Climate Accord of 2015 ludicrously claims to be targeting.

While the world collectively holds its breath for the delivery of this report (or, more accurately the summary of this report), it's worth taking the time to consider the origin, purpose and history of the IPCC, an organization that is often glossed over as a collection of revered scientists but is in fact something very different.

The primary "customer" for the IPCC's reports (besides the repeaters of the mockingbird media) is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the body formed by international treaty at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. The UNFCCC seeks to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

There are two things to note about the UNFCCC and its role in setting the climate change agenda.

Firstly, as viewers of Why Big Oil Conquered The World will already know, the 1992 Earth Summit was the love child of Maurice Strong, the highly unlikely father of the modern environmental movement. Strong himself founded UNEP in 1972 and served as its first Executive Director. He was the founder or board member of a bewildering array of environmental institutions. He was the co-creator (with Mihail Gorbachev) of the (bizarrely religious) Earth Charter. Oh, and, by the way, Strong also happened to be a millionaire oil tycoon who was personally selected to be the protégé of David Rockefeller by none other than David Rockefeller. But for some strange reason the environmentalists who like to play the spot-the-oil-shill among any and everyone who ever strays from the climate religion's dogma (myself included, naturally) have no problem at all with Strong's business interests, or indeed the business interests of any of the billionaire arch-globalists who have founded and funded the mainstream environmental movement for most of the past century. Strong was, needless to say an influential figure in the founding of the IPCC and, more importantly, in the drafting of the Framework Convention on Climate Change which bases its actions on the IPCC's reports.

The second thing to note about the UNFCCC is its stated objective of "prevent[ing] dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." One will note that the convention (signed in 1992) assumed from the very start, before the IPCC had even delivered its first assessment report, that "anthropogenic interference with the climate system" was "dangerous" and that it was the convention's duty to prevent it by stabilizing greenhouse gases. If you think this means the conclusion of the IPCC's work has been baked into the cake since before that work even really began then you are exactly correct. The very definition of "climate change" in the UNFCCC itself is "a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity." Natural causes of climate change are not even considered within the UNFCCC's mandate.

The "conclusion" that humans are responsible for climate change was never a conclusion at all; it was an axiom. The IPCC's work over the past three decades has been to provide the fig leaf of scientific justification for the UNFCCC to "reach" that "conclusion" (read: affirm that axiom).

So it should not be surprising to discover that the IPCC itself is a sham of historic proportions.

Hailed as the measured conclusion of the world's leading experts in the relevant scientific fields, the IPCC's assessment reports are in fact political documents written largely by political appointees and based not on peer-reviewed research, but on the activist literature of globalist-funded environmental organizations. This is not even controversial. Veteran journalist Donna Laframboise's well-reviewed 2011 IPCC exposé, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert, documents in exhaustive detail the grad students, political operatives and non-credentialed laymen who are largely responsible for the report, and proves that the IPCC's claim to be based purely on peer-reviewed scientific literature is a bald-faced lie.

This helps to explain why the IPCC and their dutiful PR representatives in the bankster-funded, globalist-controlled mainstream media have pulled out every trick in the book to dupe a gullible public into going along with the farce. As I reported five years ago, the IPCC's much-ballyhooed claim that they were "95% certain" that humans are causing climate change is just one of those tricks.

How do you reach a "95%" level of certainty about such a claim, anyway? Well, the IPCC employs a “likelihood scale” that assigns percentages to various phrases, ranging from “exceptionally unlikely” (0-1% probability) to “virtually certain” (99-100% probability). This sounds like it is based on a precise scientific measurement or well-defined statistical process, but when it comes to deciding how likely it is that climate change is man-made, this is quite literally nothing more than a word choice of the report’s authors.

According to the IPCC: “The approaches used in detection and attribution research […] cannot fully account for all uncertainties, and thus ultimately expert judgment is required to give a calibrated assessment of whether a specific cause is responsible for a given climate change.”

In other words, the “95% probability” that launched a thousand headlines is nothing more than an arbitrary number decided on in closed door meetings between the report authors. Still, it serves an important propaganda purpose in giving a veneer of scientific credibility to the decision, one that a media that never bothers to explain these decisions to you thinks you will be too stupid to figure out for yourself.

But, as Dr. Roy Spencer points out, there is a significant 95% figure when it comes to discussing uncertainty and climate: Namely, the fact that the climate models (which we are expected to believe will accurately predict the climate decades, even centuries, in advance) actually overestimate observed warming 95% of the time. How ironic.

But worse than all of this is the fact that the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers," the document that receives all the attention from the fake news purveyors in the MSM, is a purely political document, written independently of the science report itself.

Let me repeat that for the hard of thinking: This "summary" is a negotiated political document that is written before the science report that it purports to summarize.

The authors of the science report are then made to ensure that their report agrees with the summary. This is why the summary is customarily released first (to an endless stream of free publicity in the mainstream media), and then, often several months later, the scientific reports are finally presented to the public.

Remember this well when the CNNs and New York Times and BBCs and other known purveyors of globalist propaganda start going berserk over the latest "IPCC report" next week. Everything they will tell you about this report is either a lie by commission, a lie by omission, or a half truth.

Crucially, they will only report on the Summary for Policymakers, pretending that it is a scientific document. It is not. It is (as even the more honest outlets will admit) a purely political document, negotiated over the course of months by diplomats and politicians representing the UNFCCC signatories. In fact, this forthcoming "summary" has been under negotiation since at least January, a full 10 months before the report's release.

You will see a lot of breathless coverage about the coming "end of the world" via fiery CO2-induced heat death over the course of the next week, but as you listen to these propaganda reports, bear this in mind: the Summary for Policymakers that the IPCC is about to release is nothing more than a political document, worked over by politicians for the sole purpose of getting the public on board with the carbon eugenics agenda. You have been warned.

So the argument here is that humans have no effect on the environment and 100% of the money generated to mitigate pollution is used to line the pockets of the rich? This is a pretty hard sell.

I can get on board with the idea that tax money is being funneled away from its intended purpose. That's just business as usual. I can get on board with the idea that the flow of money should be more transparent and accountable.

The problem is that every time I read a 'global climate change is a hoax' argument no such suggestions are made. The ultimate conclusion seems to be:

Ignore the problem, because there is no problem.

And that is exactly the kind of attitude I expect to hear from the corporate world so they can continue exploiting the planet for everything it's worth while leaving behind a wake of garbage that someone else is supposed to clean up.

You talk about a carbon tax like it's a doomsday event. Everything that creates carbon is unsustainable in the long run. If the military industrial complex wasn't owned by Big Oil we'd already be well on our way to having 100% sustainable zero pollution energy solutions. Instead inventors that threaten the dominance of the most violent organization in the world are straight up murdered in cold blood. We will be kept dependent on fossil fuel until they finally take their last dying breath and fade into obscurity.

Global climate change deniers never seem to acknowledge that any kind of pollution is a problem. A plastic island as big as a continent doesn't even seem big enough to get their attention. This is why it's hard to take this claim seriously.

Deniers, as you like to call them, are the people who haven't jumped on either politicized side of this contrived issue and know full well that pollution is a problem. No one is advocating pollution. However, pollution the desired symptom of a deeper agenda and your emotional reaction to the article demonstrates your arrogant presumptions and inability to see the manipulation in this topic. So - pardon us conspiracy theorists if having the government fix the situation they spearheaded seems suspicious.. the same government that has been harboring free energy, controlling/ weaponizing weather, and deliberately polluting worldwide while enacting more laws to police themselves.

it seemed like a pretty emotional reaction, as you seem to believe that James and his audience are some kind of right-wing/creationist/conservative/[insert buzzword here] group.

If you'll take the time and check James' other work, you'll see that he actually cares about this planet and its environment, as he spent lots of time and energy talking about REAL threats like nuclear waste, EMP, the food industry poisoning everyone and everything, and, above all else, genetic manipulation of the biosphere. These are the actual things that could destroy the world. Climate change is a massive hoax not unlike the year 1000 scare or the usual "the Messiah is gonna come and destroy everything, guys! A-Anytime now!" tirade from the abrahimic religions.

Here's a thought. Instead of just asking random people on a comment thread, why not first look at the article's source link videos. From there, you will find many other sources. This would also result in you gaining an educated opinion instead of just getting a quick opinion based off of someone else. Note that I did not say to LIMIT your OWN RESEARCH to this article, but merely use it as a starting point. Or just keep chugging those beers and claiming you are above the fray while being the problem in reality.

Why do you assume I haven't researched this topic? I wouldn't have jumped in here to run my mouth with zero information.

Just because IPCC overestimates the effect we have on climate and is trying to profit from it doesn't mean everything they say is outright bullshit.

That's not how the world works. In order to manipulate people you have to constantly be telling half-truths. This report doesn't identify any half-truth in the argument it's trying to debunk, so it's obviously not being objective.

"They" are hoping you'll buy the lie, wait for natural cycles to disrupt the climate, continue to blame, shame and tax you, (and maybe some of your loved ones must die to save humanity) so they continue to accumulate wealth & power, the serfs descend back into malnourished poverty and the elite ride out the climate cycle in style.
There is a problem. The Sun. Natural cycles. It's not you and me. Pollution, that's one thing. But not anthropogenic climate change. That's just normal cycles dressed up to make us think it's our fault.
Glacial cycles on Earth are the norm, lasting around 100,000 years... And inter-glacial periods last 10 - 15 thousand years. The Earth is cooling, despite the lies to the contrary. "Hottest Years Ever!" Look back at global temps in the 1930's.
Do a little more research.

I agree with lunix on this one. IPCC report is not hot air at all, it is fact. Warming climate deniers are completely off track. We need to get rid of the CO2 in the atmosphere and get back to the pre-industrialized oxygen levels for our health and the planet's health. Stop cutting the rain forests and give back the land to nature.

Anyone can make images like that. I could even make them myself. Please don't be so naive.

The Global temperature goes up and down in cycles. The last low (known as the mini ice age) was in the early 1800s when people camped out and ice skated on the Themes in London. It's been rising since then till it maxed out in 1998 and has been declining since then.

That's why the winters have been getting colder with more snow and ice every year. Where is all this extra heat and sea level rises melting ice caps etc.? I haven't noticed them. Have you?

Someone once said "there are no facts, only interpretations". Maybe it's time to start listening to him and use your own head to come out with your own interpretation.

We need to get rid of the CO2 in the atmosphere and get back to the pre-industrialized oxygen levels for our health and the planet's health

Oh, and please do tell: what are these "pre-industrialized oxygen levels"? How did you find out about them? Did you travel back in time and measure ALL THE OXYGEN IN THE ENTIRE PLANET, EVERY SINGLE ATOM OF IT?

I had to re-read my comment, but I'm pretty sure I never said that "we should keep polluting the Earth". Nor any of the other stuff that you're attributing to me. But maybe it's me going senile, who knows.

Nobody here wants to pollute the Earth, we're not even talking about pollution, which is a real problem. Nobody here is even talking about politicians, they don't deserve anyone's hate, they're too insignificant for that.

We're simply talking about giving power to people who shouldn't have it. Too much power.

You need to start distinguishing between "polluting" and "releasing carbon"... One supposedly warms the Earth and one destroys the soil and water. It's the Carbon Dioxide that you have lumped into this term "pollution"...

Do you know how much life exists in coral reefs? They are less than 1% of the ocean and account for 25% of the life force. Coral reefs are the rain-forest of the ocean. Most evolution happens there and it's obvious that they are responsible for keeping everything in balance in more ways than we will ever fully understand.

Coral reefs are dying. But no, by all means, "the ocean farted CO2" and we have nothing to do with that.

Our former President George W. Bush killed a project that was well underway to launch a satellite that would greatly help study and measure climate change. Most of the money had been spent but this didn't stop W from preventing us from learning more about this crucial subject. I have no doubt the usual crew of very wealthy people would use climate change to make money as they have used everything else that gets into their clutches. I have no doubt some people like to generate fear to make money. It is the basis of our defense industry milking this country for $trillions. So why not climate change too? And everything eventually also becomes a vehicle for political power. Just witness how certain people of different religions have used it to imprison and murder others for hundreds of years. So why not use climate change too? Yet as a Chemical Engineer with a broad scientific background for a number of years, I have come to carefully appreciate the existence of climate change and its mostly human-driven basis. This article is a disservice to rational thinking as it seeks to quietly undermine the rising awareness we cannot just treat our planet any way we want, by pointing out how rife it is with politics. Behind the dispassionate mask of investigative journalism is a very old smear campaign that seeks to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Your right you dumb shit❗️Forget about that big ball of gas called the sun , that couldn’t possibly amount to anything right⁉️Since everyone is absolutely sure of the age of the sun right⁉️🌞 Its only less then halfway through its life right⁉️Because according to mainstream scientists its only burned through %33 of its fuel , and not %68 as some UNDERGROUND SCIENTISTS suspect right⁉️Thats why they raided a NEW MEXICO solar observatory with blacked out helicopters and delta force type troops right⁉️Because there is nothing going on in this entire galaxy but us right⁉️We’re static in our milkyway right⁉️ The earth only rotates at 1000 MPH❗️Rotating around our star (The SUN) at 67,000 MPH❗️As our solar system both rotates and travels through our galaxy at 514,000 MPH❗️But there is nothing to that right⁉️Because nothing out there could ever effect us here on mighty invincible earth right⁉️Space is a HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT , and that doesn’t change to make anyone’s comfort level go up . This tiny little star system is flying through a debris field , and some gases do cause the sun to heat up like putting gas on a fire . NOT ABNORMAL & NOT CONSPIRACY THEORY❗️Perfectly NORMAL planetary mechanics . But of course to the IDIOTS out there already laughing because nothing can upset the balance of this tiny little rock. Look up in the night sky once in a while using night vision goggles , and you tell me if you see nothing of interest❓Don’t buy into global warming because its BULLSHIT , but don’t believe that its nothing either . This guy knows politics , and can read you into a coma . But he doesn’t observe anything that goes on outside the surface of this planet 🌎 , and thats just stupid if you take these numbers into consideration . Anyone have an SUV that can do 514,000 MPH⁉️ 😆 Yeah thats fast . And remember you have NO BRAKES so 💥 collisions are possible . THINK❗️🤔